I read this article, Pax Trumpiana by Dr. Paul Krugman, and I replied with a comment at the bottom.
My comment was not approved by the reviewers, so to anyone wondering if the New York Times is more democratic that Russian Television - which also removed my offensive comments - don't kid yourself. They censor ideas that offend them just as much. It's a wonder Liberals claim Trumpians are dogmatic when they can't avoid that label themselves.
These sentences are a paraphrase of what I wrote since I thought they would be used:
Dr. Krugman you have it backwards, and normally I don't expect to say that about your viewpoints, generally I agree with them.
Most economic-political problems in the Western World are not a result of
America acting as a non-Roman power, they exist precisely because
America doesn't act exactly like an Imperial power. To conquer and crush
opponents means they are removed political dynamics from the power
struggle. Vanquished leave the field and that brings peace and stability
because they are no longer contestants. To partially-defeat enemies - in a
"civilized" way - means to allow the remains to fester and foment which
lengthens the struggle immensely. As we see every day now with radical
islamic terrorists. America is too smart by half expecting hating
enemies to just retire after defeat - they just wait it out and
reconstitute.
The problem is America is a Schizophrenic Empire -
that oscillates from isolationist to imperialist and back - wreaking
havoc for allies and enemies alike all in the name of "progress". You
are the architects of your own tragedy. When America realizes - as it
once did - to stamp out and defeat real enemies totally means to bring
lasting peace.
So I've been AWOL from blogging as I explore Twitter as another media outlet one can use/abuse/misuse your time with. I find it hilarious that people follow you/ unfollow you based on one -often too short - 144 character idea. It is a demonstration of the fatuousness and shallow wisdom of the average person that can hear one unfavourable idea, not chew it over for the real deeper meaning, and reflect on the reality within which that idea was presented, and thus reject the speaker outright. When I read other people's ideas, the last thing I am is dismissive. If you are that shallow, I can assure you any great thoughts you think you have are no deeper than a kiddie wading pool.
On Twitter, as here, I have posited from a state of objectivity towards US presidential candidates my views on both Hillary Clinton@HillaryClinton and Donald J Drumpf /@realDonaldTrump . In each of them, I see a looming disaster for the rest of us on the planet. That disaster comes from the very nature of their sociopathy and their personal pre-emption to others' needs. They have no problem lying to get what they want, and they will sleep well at night whether they succeed or not. That is concerning.
If you want to understand what I find so alarming about both major candidates, read this
and tell me if they aren't worrying. I predicted Trump would win before +Dilbert Scott Adams because I saw how effectively Trump cleaved workers from the status quo Democrats. He did his research- or had research done by smarter people - that exploited the FoxNewsTruthiness angst.
Even stalwart leftists like Michael Moore now see the writing on the wall:
Clinton has lost and doesn't even realize it. She is sleepwalking into disaster; assuming her massive self-worth is so redeeming that most dumb bastards will agree with her.
The main problems I see with Trump are: he is a thin-skinned reactionary that has been sheltered from real performance disaster by wilful better people so much that he overestimates his own worth. Trump would start a war he didn't prepare for and he wouldn't suffer the indignity of failure. Therein lies hubris. Remember the fever to war in Iraq, remember the buyer's remorse and the disaster afterwards. Hysteria feels great, the consequences not so much. Many Trump supporters will rue the day.
The main problems I see with Hillary Clinton; she is a self-important amoral liar more obsessed with self-image so much that the taint of failure will be obliterated along with the poor hapless victims in the way. The cost to others may be incalculable but she is certain she won't bear it. Clinton supporters are blinded to what they accept along with the candidate. Clinton would use a war to avoid admitting she made a mistake. How the Clintons conned the Left I will never understand.
I can't help it, this is what I see when Clinton speaks:
Neither is a bright hope for change.
After many months, I would much rather see https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson @GovGaryJohnson as the president because I think he has the right mix of policies and sanity that won't make a bad situation worse. The USA needs to be a stabilizing force and not a destabilizer.
Back to my main thesis; I need to make clear that doesn't mean in total I don't agree with the idea of a sociopath being the president. That's right, because I've lived in the real world long enough to know the job of a societal leader is to be willing to make choices no sane human being can make because the decision requires what is in the best interest of a wider need, the need of a people. Human emotions are the enemy of tough decisions. Sociopaths are free from that empathy that might distract and defeat a people.
I will give you an example I've used before of a president I admire greatly. I will introduce him by reputation first and then by name.
Here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page:
_____________'s main goals in office were to keep pressure on the Soviet Union
and reduce federal deficits. In the first year of his presidency, he
threatened the use of nuclear weapons in an effort to conclude the Korean War; his New Look policy of nuclear deterrence prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for conventional military forces. He ordered coups in Iran and Guatemala. _____________ gave major aid to help France in Vietnam. He gave strong financial support to the new nation of South Vietnam. Congress agreed to his request in 1955 for the Formosa Resolution, which obliged the U.S. to militarily support the pro-Western Republic of China in Taiwan and continue the isolation of the People's Republic of China.
It seems from first glance this was a bloodthirsty sort of man, a Dracula, willing to inflict the severest indignity upon defeated foes, that he would annihilate groups of men in a nuclear explosion as a "cheaper" way to avoid casualties. Intimidating enemies with assured destruction like hanging the severed heads and mutilated bodies as a warning to their kin of what horrors one finds when they enter this foreign dukedom. This leader seems a narcissistic despot, a Hitler-like vanity, slaying foes for the sake of his new Reich.
Take away the name from the strategy, history, and accomplishments and to any sane person it would appear the man at the centre (given that in 1955 a woman president was unthinkable) is true tyrannical villainy. I doubt you realized he warned people he was prepared to use nuclear weapons, but back in that day it was not seen as abhorrent conduct but a means to saving many soldiers' lives, and he was dedicated to that end with all he had done in WWII.
Eisenhower
I do not claim to know whether or not Eisenhower was a sociopathic type
personality. I doubt it. I would extrapolate that as a soldier that knew and endured and
regretted many unspeakable tragedies in pursuit of total victory in WWII
Europe, he was made to act in this manner. He learned what wins in war. I like to think it was for him, like most soldiers, the
pragmatism of utility hard learned in battle that makes one act as if
incapable - to the outside world - of feeling for those that sacrifice. And those vanquished. A man capable of ordering good people to their death without concern and without regret. Order them to sacrifice one does in pursuit of society's goals. That cannot be indistinguishable - by deed alone - from any other single-minded sociopath.
And while Clinton and Trump have all the psychological traits that might make them practical stand-ins for the job, does anyone think they will be as great as an Eisenhower?
The fundamental difference between these two and Eisenhower comes down to a simple factor: Eisenhower was not in it for anything other than serving the people. His people. His stubborn ruthlessness in war was driven by his singular main purpose; to defeat enemies of American interests no matter what the cost.
But if either Trump or Clinton cannot rise to the level of an Eisenhower, then should you risk handing them the keys to the kingdom? Think of all the other ways they might wreak havoc amongst their own people?
